The sacking of Comey

Why
Was Comey Fired?

The
simplest explanation is that Trump doesn’t like him much and
doesn’t trust him at all.

The
firing of FBI Director James Comey may have been a surprise to some,
most particularly in the media, but there was a certain inevitability
about it given the bureau’s clear inability to navigate the
troubled political waters that developed early last summer and have
continued ever since. The initial reaction that it may have been
triggered by Comey’s recent maladroit comments regarding the Huma
Abedin emails would appear to miss the mark as that issue was not
raised either by Attorney General Jeff Sessions or by the White House
in their written explanations of what had taken place and why.

The
most widely accepted explanation for the firing is that it was
carried out by the White House to disrupt the ongoing investigation
into apparent Russian meddling into the U.S. presidential election
and suggestions that there may have been collusion between some Trump
campaign officials and the Russians. But that argument lacks
credibility in that the action will have the opposite effect,
energizing both Republicans and Democrats in Congress to agitate for
an independent counsel to look into the issue. And FBI professionals
on the investigative team certainly will not stop their work now that
Comey is gone. As Maine’s Republican Sen. Susan Collins put it,
“The president didn’t fire the entire FBI. He fired the director
of the FBI.” She added she had “every confidence” the
investigation will continue apace.

The
statements by the White House and Sessions cite two issues. The first
is Comey’s unprofessional handling of the Hillary Clinton email
investigation, where he first decided not to prosecute her over the
mishandling of classified information and then subsequently revealed
to the public that the investigation had been reopened shortly before
the election, possibly influencing the outcome. This is a serious
matter, as Comey broke with precedent by going public with details of
bureau investigations that normally are considered confidential. One
might argue that it is certainly an odd assertion for the White House
to be making, as the reopening of the investigation undoubtedly
helped Trump, but it perhaps should be seen as an attempt to create
some kind of bipartisan consensus about Comey having overreached by
exposing bureau activities that might well have remained secret.

The
second issue raised by both Sessions and the White House is Comey’s
inability to “effectively lead the Bureau” given what has
occurred since last summer. That is a legitimate concern. When the
Clinton investigation was shelved, there was considerable dissent in
the bureau, with many among the rank-and-file believing that the
egregious mishandling of classified information should have some
consequences even if Comey was correct that a prosecution would not
produce a conviction.

And
the handling of “Russiagate” also angered some experienced agents
who believed that the reliance on electronic surveillance and
information derived from intelligence agencies was the wrong way to
go. Some called for questioning the Trump-campaign suspects who had
surfaced in the initial phases of the investigation, a move that was
vetoed by Comey and his team. It would be safe to say that FBI morale
plummeted as a result, with many junior and mid-level officers
leaving their jobs to exploit their security clearances in the
lucrative government contractor business.

There
has been considerable smoke about both the Clinton emails and the
allegations of Russian interference in last year’s election, but I
suspect that there is relatively little fire. As Comey asserted, the
attempt to convict a former secretary of state on charges of
mishandling information without any ability to demonstrate intent
would be a mistake and would ultimately fail. No additional
investigation will change that reality.

As
for the Russians, we are still waiting for the evidence demonstrating
that Moscow intended to change the course of the U.S. election.
Further investigation will likely not produce anything new,
though it will undoubtedly result in considerable political spin to
explain what we already know. It is unimaginable that Michael Flynn,
for all his failings, agreed to work on behalf of Russian interests,
while other names that have surfaced as being of interest in the case
were hardly in a position to influence what the Trump administration
might agree to do. There is no evidence of any Manchurian Candidate
here.

I
believe that the simplest explanation for the firing of Comey is the
most likely: Donald Trump doesn’t like him much and doesn’t trust
him at all. While it is convenient to believe that the FBI director
operates independently from the politicians who run the country, the
reality is that he or she works for the attorney general, who in turn
works for the president. That is the chain of command, like it or
not. Any U.S. president can insist on a national-security team that
he is comfortable with, and if Trump is willing to take the heat from
Congress and the media over the issue he certainly is entitled to do
what he must to have someone he can work with at the FBI.

Philip
Giraldi, a former CIA officer, is executive director of the Council
for the National Interest.